The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-21 00:00:00

t'.e present moment to answer the question, but w ou ld ta k e an ca st ) , o pportunity of doing; so. caCape.PEC HELL said the other night he a s k e d a question in reference to her Majesty's cruise rs or. the coast of Afric a . nee that time he had head that the q uest i on was to be echAcd in another pace, where it would most probably be answered. Ile would therefore merely say, that he would take an early opportunity of asking for papers relative to the conduct of her Majesty's cruizers on the coast of Africa. Petitions against the Poor-law Amendment Act were pre sented by Mr. Fielden, Mr. D. W. Harvey, and Mr. P. Barth wick. General JOHNSON presented petitions from Wakefield, for the abolition of the Poor-law Bill. In doing so he thought it was right to state that the petitioners remonstrated agaiest the Bill, and signed themselves your " flemonstrancers." Several Members objected to the reception of the petition, and requested the lion. Member to withdraw it, as there was s sine ing disrespectful in its wording. The lion. and Gal lant Member stated, that the petitioaers would not alter one word in the petition whether it was received or not. The House divided upon the reception of the petition, when there appeared— For its reception Againit it lO Majority a ga i nst t h e reception of the petition-2COIOO REPEAL OF THE NEW POOR LAW ACT. Mr. JOHN FIELD EN rose to address the House on the subject of the motion of which he had given notice—namely, for learn to brine- in a Bill t o repea l t h e P oor L aw Amend ment Act passed in the Session of 1834. The question at issue was, whether the poor of this country were to be pro tected. And if the present measnru continued in operatiol, the question would arise, whether life and property would re main safe. If this Act were persisted in, there would be, he declared, no security whatever for life or property in !Lis country. And now, he would ask, what were the abuses of the old system ? Payment of wages out of rate?, and increase of rates then by. But what caused this? Taxation ? In 1795, it ens proved by Mr. Davis, rector of Beikharn, Berks, that a reduction of no less that 50 per cent. had taken place in the wages of agricultural labourers ; that in the 14th and. 13th centuries a day labourer could earn a quarter of wheat for twenty-one days' labour. At the average price of labour, and the average price of the quarter for the last twenty years. a man could not earn a quarter of wheat under forty days' labour. What means had we provided to remedy The new Peer-law workhouses as " a test" ef destitution, and a complicated machinery to effect a uniform system of administration, and correct evils and abuses dissimilar, and requiring different remedies in different parishes. This uni form system was impracticable, which the departure shows, for there has been a departure from the original " test." He contended that the new law was unnecessary, the people were of that opinion, the payers of rates as well as the receivers of relief. There were few petitions for it, and many against it. But it had been admitted that the operation of the old law was good in some places. What he (Mr. Fielden) contended was, that it might be just as good everywhe re ; an d t h at if abuses had crept i n, they ought not to be attributed to the poor, but to those who mismanaged their affairs. Now, he begged the attention of Hon. Members to the results of inqui ries which he had made into the returns of the Poor-law Com missioners themselves, to show how far there had, after all, been any advantage in the new system over the old : " From Returns published by the Poor-law Commissioners, the Poor -rates were the highest in 1818, being then 7,870,8011. year ending 25th March, 1832, 7,036,9681. ; that ending 25th March, 1835, 5 ,326,416/. ; that ending nth March, 1837, 4,044,7411.; showing a decrease between 1818 and 14335, of 30 per cent.; between 1832 and 1835 (when the rates were every year decreasing,), of 21 per cent.; and between 1835 and 1837, of 20 per cent. When payments that used to be made out of rates before the new Poor-law, and, since then, have been paid out of other funds, are taken into account, it is question able whether the new law has effected any reduction of rates at all. And in this opinion 1 11T11 confirmed by the reduction of rates in Lancashire, and in the west riding of the county of York, where agitation prevails. In Lancaster (county), the de crease of rates between 1835 and 1837, is 17. E per cent.; in the West Riding of Yorkshire, 21 per cent. In a return made to the House of Lords, and ordered to be printed on the 22d of May last, the expenditure is given for in-door maintenance and establishment charges for one year, ending Dec. 25, 1836, in 123 unions, comprising 9 ,310 parishes, and a population of 1,166,150, all that return embraces. And I find by this return, that the maintenance, of the in-door paupers averages Si. Ils. Id. per head for the year; that is 9 3.11 d. per week for each person in these union work houses. And I find the establishment charges average 9/. 15s. Bd. per head for the year, or 3s. 9d. per week for each person in those work houses. So that the cost of maintenance and establishment charges for each person in your union workhouses is 15/. 6s. 9d. per an num, or ss. 10Id. per head per week. By the same return I find that the establishment charges in these 125 unions amount to 2s. 21d. per head on the whole population of the unions. And by a return in the last report of the Poor-law Commis sioners, the rate per head of expenditure for the relief of the poor on the whole population of Lancashire, for the year end ing ;larch 25, 1a37, is but 2s. Pd. per head : that is only 60. per head more than the establishment charges alone in these unions; and in the township of Oldham, which I have the honour to represent, the rate of expenditure for the relief of the poor for the same period is only Is. 21(1. per head on the population of that township ; that is Is. Old per head less than the establishment charges alone amount to on the whole population of those 125 unions, Why, then, should this law be forced on my constituents by bullets and bayonets ? They wish to know why. From the same returns of the Commissioners, I find that in 18 counties, the rate of expenditure per head with reference to the population in the year ending 25th March, 1834, was less by 28 per cent. than the expenditure was in 18 other counties, un der the operation of the new Poor-law, in the year ending 25th March, 1837, and in which latter IS counties a reduction in the rates of expenditure of 42 p er cent. i s said to have been effected since the new law was passed. In the former 18 counties, too, the highest rate in any one of them is less than the lowest rate in any other one of the latter counties in which the saving of 42 per cent. has been effected. This shoes that the Poor Law Amendment Act was unnecessary. Then what is the principle of this Act, and what effects on the able bodied did its framers contemplate ? The principle was that the principal of the paupers shall, in no case, be so eligible 'a that of the lowest class who live on their labour.—( Hear, hear.) Had there been a return to content ? Had crime been lessoned by the new law ? That was the question that called loudly for an answer. Upon the point of crime, what was said by Mr. Arley in his second report? In the second report of Poor Law Commissioners (1836) Mr. Addy quotes Mr. Sniehe, of the Biggleswad e Union, who says the Act is working exceedingly well for all parties, and, in confirmation, sap I challenge inquiry among the poor themselves, where, indeed, the inquiry ought to be made." He then quotes from written testimonials of several of the principal occupiers of the union, and of thee', one says—" I think they frequent the beer shops as much or more than ever." Anl. other :—"I ant sorry to say that sheep-stealing and other de predations have been more prevalent since the system corn nu need, than ever was known before." Another :—" They fre quent the ale house quite as much as ever. Poaching and other depredations have increased double to any former," Ano ther :—" I do not feel able to answer as to their frequenting the ale-house, or as regards poaching, &c., as to any alteration." Another :—"The ale-houses arc,l think, more frequented than ever. lam not of opinion that poaching and other depreda tions have at all diminished, but that the greater crime of sheep-stealing has increased ten-fold." Another I think poaching and other depredations have been quite as numerous, and sheep-stealing is spreading more every year," The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had been I leased to chal lenge him (Mr. Fielden). He had challenged hint by refer ring with exultation to the Unions of Biggleswade and Amp thin- The Noble Lord had referred to these as furnishine proofs of the extraordinary good working of the system, fi e ( Mr. Fielden) had expected that this working would turn out to ho not very good : but he was bound to confess; that working had turned out to be even much worse than ence from he (Mr. Fielden) had expected. lie had p ropose d to get evjci 21 Unions in which it had been alleged that the saving had been the greatest; that wish, however, did not meet with the approval of the Committee. He (Mr. Fielden) was permitted to take the three first unions on the list ; those happened so be Ampthill, Woburn, and Bedford. He had sent two intelligent persons into these unions in search of information. What was the result of their inquiries? It was this—that derths in Ampthill workhouse had been quite frightful ; that in these ;miens widows, orphans, and the aged have had their allowances cruelly reduced; that wages had not risen, but on the contrary, that they also were reduced, while the head money, as it is celled, hart been taken away; that hundreds of labourers were out of emplev, and that there were not more employed than there were- previous to the new law; that bastardy had in ; that the poor were suffering distress to an extent never before known amongst them ; that they cannot get a sufhieney of food of the poorest sort ; that their furniture is Tsang; that their bedding is going; and that they are reduced. to the last shift of sang their clothes to buy bread, T his i 3 very horrible. All this, however, he (Mr. Folden) expec'ed to hear. But there was someng inrill;!tely m ore h orrible than this—something so horrible that hr. hardly knew how to allude to it, though his duty to the country forced him to do so. There had been abominations ILd. practised in the workhouse of Ampthill, of the most horrible eseription, lie had been told that the porter of that work- Wouse :aid made it a place for the corrupting of the male nuth of the country. Several youths had been spoken of ha the objects of this man's wicked attempts. It appeared that one youth had been committed to gaol, perhaps to be tried for his life, on the charge of having inflicted severe wounds on the person of this porter ; but if report spoke true, it would appear also that the conduct of this porter towards the same youth had been s uc h as to make tho porter liable to be tried for a capital offence. The youth being in jail to be tried, the porter had left the neighbourhood, and, as was alleged, has altogether dizappcared, although he, as the prosecutor, should, as a matter of necessity, be expected to he foremost at the trial. [Here the Hon. Member referred to several cases to Maintain his argument that the unions were an inconvenient machinery ; that the central board was despotic and tyranni cal ; and that the workhouses were dens of torture and mur der. 1 He contended that the management and discipline of the workhouses were most illegal and unnatural. He really wondered how Hon. Members could with patience endure the thought of the savage separatings cf the people, and of the details of the almost worse than starvation which they were obliged to undergo.—( Hear, hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Fielden) implored the House to consider well what he had been saying to them ; he had hoped to impress upon them that of which he himself had felt quite certain—that this atrocious law would never be tolerated by the people of England. The Honourable Member, after thanking the House for the patience with which they had listened to his lengthened de tails, concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to re peal the Poor-law Amendment Act., The principle of the Bill was said to he tluis—that the lowest class under the Poor lart Amendment BM, should be as well off as thoe of the lowest class which subsist upon the produce of their labour —that is, that the; should be on as good a footing in food, raiment and habitation as the worst paid labourers. Now, he would ask, was this the cause, when it was notorious they were subjected in the poor.houses!o algriftrd dietary, to separation from their farnilien, tile wife from the husband, the child from tlhe and finally, to a system of rigid and severe tlist;iline? In all th ese respects t h e avowed principle or the Poor-law Amendment Bill was violated. lle alluded to the alarming fact, that the wages of a man of fenuil", say four children, working as a labourer in the puperised distnets which was about 13s. 8 - 1. weekly, prior to the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill, had since fallen, so that at present the wages of a labourer of this class would net average more tbrn 93. c argument as to the wages of the labourer. He could, from his own experience, assert that weges were not risen since. the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. It ‘vas supposed that even if a d ecrease s h ou ld t a k e pl a ce, an ( qui valent would be afforded to the labourer in the additional em ph,yittnt which iVoiild lib gileen to .his Children. 1113 own experience did net lead him to think that they had benefited much in this way ; but'still thinking as lie did the Board of Gust-diens a mere efficient executive than the Overseers under the old system, he could net accede to the me . ien of the Hen.. M .roter for Oldham. Mr. HODGES was one of these who had opposed the pessing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill when it was under discussion, and he had seen nothinrs in its operation calculated to alter the opi n i on h e t h en formed of it ; but it was one thing to oppose it in the sh a p e o f a Bill, an d anot h e r to repeal it now that it was th e l aw o f t h e l an d . E ven as n ow adminis tered, he was convinced that it was productive of much diffi culty and distress, y e t h e s h ou ld not rote f ir the motion of the Honourable Member for Oldham, in the confident hope that sonic modifications would b e m a de in the provisions of that law. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that if on the one hand many Honourable Members felt it impossible to give the Honourable Member for Oldh am t h e i r vote , so , on t h e o ther hand it was ' eqeally obvious that it w as i m p oss ibl e t o give a positive nega tive to his motion, more espe c i a lly a ft er the speech of the Noble Lord, which gave no encouragement that Government would relax in its attachment to this question, which they had over and over again asserted they would maintain —( Hear.) The lion. Gentleman then said, that as he was always opposed to ate paupers, so likewise he could never ceuntenance , paupsrs is the humbler walks of life who w ere a bl e to work. Though he did not agree to an instantaneous repeal of this law, he still %idled to guard himself againstany approval of the principle of it, and the course which under the circumstances he would was to move the previous question. He maintained that the condiiion of the labouri ng p oor .via anythiets but im prored since the pissing of this Bill. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to various d e f ec t s i n t h e poor -l aw system in the rural districts. In many cases a pauper was obliged to walk eight miles in order t o o b ta i n re li e f . —( C r i es o f " Oh, o h !" mingled with the word " Humbug I") Some lion. Member cried " Humbug," but he (Mr. H.) maintained that the as-. scrtion he made was not humbug, but a positive fact. Ha thought that if the prohibition to administering out-door re lief were removed, much of what was obnoxious in this mea sure would be done away. The average is - ages of an able bodied labourer with a wife and four children did not exceed 10s. a week, and what was 10s. when divided among four persons ? The Hon. Member concluded by moving the pre vious question as an amendment. On the amendment being put from the Chair, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he hoped the House would not sanction this indirect manner of ineeting the quesvion.— ( Hear, hear.) No consideration that a Committee was then sitting—no consideration that another inquiry might be made, ought to prevent the House from coming to a decision on the point submitted to them, and on which, in his humble opi nion, they had already quite sufficient information—namely, whether the Poor-law Act ought to be totally and absolutely repealed. He certainly should be no party to holding out to the country that it depended upon any report of the Poor-law Committee whether or not the Act should be repealed— ( Hear, hear, hear)—and, therefore, it was he should call upon the House to join with him in opposing the amendment of the Hon. Member for Southwark. He could not avoid observing that many of the charges made against the Bill upon former discussions seemed to be abandoned on the present. Last year they were told that ,the measure chiefly pressed on the old and infirm, while the main objection now urged was the taking away of the allowance from the able-bodied labourer, and not permitting them while receiving wages for labour to have any aid from the poor-rates. \N all regard to the effect of the Bill upon the old and infirm, he believed it was now eenerally admitted that they received a better allowance, and were better taken care of under the present than the old system.— ( Hear, hear.) Another question which had been raised last year, and partly this, was, that although the Bill might be applicable and beneficial to the agricultural districts, it was totally inapplicable to towns, and especially to the manufac turing population. Now, however, they heard the Hon. Member for Finsbury telling them that though the Bill might work in tow ns sa f e l y an d b ene fi c i a ll y, t h at it did sot so in the agricultural districts, and that it ought to be repealed. In this state of th e ma t ter h e did say i t was a b solutely requi site that the House should now come to a decision with the view of allowing whether they were prepa:ed or not to sanction these shifting and exaggerated charges against the law.—( Loud cheers.) It was alleged that much excite ment prevailed throughout the country upon , the sub ject of this measure, but it was his conviction that a great por tion of it was fur the most part artificially got up, and that in reality the feeling of the country was strongly in favour of the Act. He believed that the real opponents to the measure in the North did not amount to a dozen individuals, hardly one of them respectable for attainments or intelligence, and but few for character. These few, persons made a practice of pla carding the various market towns in the North with announce ments of meetings t o rece i ve t h e d e l egates f rom the Lancaster Anti-poor-law Association ; and when at one of these meetings Mr. F. O'Connor, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Oastler had deli vered themselves of their thrice-told talc to one or two gaping individuals, it was made to appear that th• sense of a whole district had been taken upon the subject, and that such and such a place had decided against the Poor-law Amendment Act, and called for a repeal. He need net say little importance was to be attached to such meetings, although, from the pains taken to disseminate the monstrous assertions made by tke speakers, and conveyed in the resolutions, they were calcu lated to do great mischief, and raise much doubt throughout the country.—(The Noble Lord here read from a Manchester paper a pa.:sage containing some strong comments on one of the meetings to which he alluded, as also a resolution it adopted,. - stating that the Poor-law Bill had been the cause of numerous child murders and deaths Irons starvation.) Now, would the House sanction the continuance of the doubts which Mr. WAN LEY eeseended the motion. The 'power of the Corierniselcners was most uneonstitetional, and the sooner it was got rid of the better. In the Chichester Union, with out the interference or controul of the Commissioncre, the same beneficial improvements had been eff.cted rs acre said to arise from this law. It might be said that those improve ments had been effected by the adoption of such regulations as had been introduced by the Commissioners. If he even granted that that was the case, could any thing more corn ple:ely show that the interference of the Commissioners was unnecess ? But, in fact, the Chichester Union had been governed upon a system which had been established for 80 years. This law was supported by a leree expend tare of the public money, and by all the power of the Commissioners at Somerset House ; on the other head, on the part of the pOor people there was not money nor ability, nor organis"tion, nor evidence. An inquiry wider such a system of partiality was but a mockery. Lord II °WICK was likewise glad that the subject •hael beer, thus dietinetly brought forward. The system followed under the present law was not greatly different from that' which had formerly existed in well-administered parishes. The system of confining relief to the able-bodied to relief in workhouses, was in operation before 1644, in teeny large manufacturing towns. Therefore he could not understand on whet principle it was that Hon. Members told them that they objected both to the system and the machinery, while at the same time they argued that the machinery was unnecessary, be cause the system which previously had prevailed in parts of Eng land was a good system. Thesewere arguments wholly irreconcile able. With respect to the workhouse system, the Hon. Member for Oldham had again that evening reverted to that complaint, so often made, of the separation of man and wife in the work houses. It was remarkable that in the same speech, the Hon. Member should have cited the former administration of relief in Oldham, as a proof that no change in the law was neces sary, bee :use in the account of the system formerly prevailing at Oldham, as detailed in the evidence collected in 1833, there was this statement concerning the workhouse :—" There is a complete separation of the sexes, except in the cases of old married people, who are allowed to live together ; young mar ried persons are separated." Why then, with the objects which he professed, did the Hon. Member propose simply a re peal of the Act of 1834 ? Why was it that previous to 1334 his philanthropy had not stimulated him to come forward nn behalf of those for whom he now appeared ? Why was it that he had not come forward previous to 1834, and pro tested ageinst the separation of man and wife in workhouses ? Not only in Oldham, but in nearly all parts of Lancashire, the system of which the Hon. Member complained had prevailed previous to 1834. The only objection to the Act of 1834 which had been urged by the Hon. Member, and which was intelligible to him (Lord Ho , .vick), was, that it was unnecessary to intro duce the new regulations, because the system of relief pre vailing in Lancashire was already so good. Then the Hon. Gentleman had told them that tits work-houses were prisons. Were they in a greater degree prisons then th e y h a d b een be fore 1834 . ? If so, in what respect? He had always thought that the real hardship of a prison consisted in this, that you could not get out of it ; and he certainly had never heard that there had been refused to any mar, the liberty of leaving a work-house. Undoubtedly, a man was refused the liberty of going in and out of a workhouse at his pleasure ; he being maintained at the expense of the industrious part of the com munity, it was necessary that he should not have relief in such a manner as would interfere with their welfare. It was per fectly optional to him to remain or not ; relief was tendered to him on certain terms, and the acceptance of it depended on himself. It was made an objection that, although in a large number of unions in the south of England the expenditure had, by means of the operation of the new law, been reduced 42 per cent., yet, notwithstanding, the expenditure was still greater than it was at Oldham. No doubt of that ; but it only proved that from long habits of pauperism which had prevailed in the south of England we had net been able, even with the means provided by the Act of 1834, yet to adopt as perfect a system as existed in some parts of the north; that we had not in four years corrected ail the evils which arose from a long course of mal-administration. Instead of being an objection to the measure, he thought tile was one of the strongest argu ments in its favour. The Hon. Member for Oldham, in stating another objection, had stated some circumstances as the result of his own experience. He had stated that through agents, whom he had employed to go from house to house in Bedfordshire, he had learned that the old people's allowances were reduced, and that the greatest distress prevailed. Now, without imputing the slightest imputation of unfairness to the Hon. Member, he thought it would be much better if he selected his instances from those parts of the country, the condition of which had been made a subject of public inquiry before the Committee, because it might be recollected that, • when evidence was adduced with reference even to the very cases of which the late Member for Berkshire complained, it appeared that, however the able-bodied labourers might be, the old, the sick, and the infirm were better off, had larger allowances, and were more indulged in every way under the new system than under the old. He thought it would have been better therefore not to make ex parte state ments. The Act was net to be condemned, even though some particular cases of abuse might be found to prevail, unless .as the Hon. Member for Finsbury said, the tendency of the mei sure was to create those abuses. It was impossible for any vi gilance on the part of the authorities to prevent all abuse; but the question was, whether under the new or the old system, these offences occurred more frequently. The Hon. Member for Oldham said that there were no petitions from agricultural labourers in favour of the continuance of this law, but that there were petitions from them against it. He did not know how this might be, but ho knew that, while those who com plained of a law were ready to petition against it, it was little the custom of those who were suffering no grievance, and re quired no change, to take the trouble of petitioning ; but he would ask the Hon. Gentleman if he could show, in those places where the Act had been carried into moat decided ap plication, that any general distress or dissatisfaction existed ? ( Mr. Fielden said, " Very great.") What were the symp toms of any great or wide-spread dissatisfaction at the pre sent period of unexampled 1 ressure?—was there any thing approaching the state of thinee which existed in 1830, when the labouring population hal the full benefit of the law which the Hon. Member wished to restore ?—a state of actual open insurrection, approaching almost to the capital itself—outrages of the most frightful desciip ion throughout the west and the south of the kingdom—nightly fires and universal alarm amongst all the owners of agricultural property. The state of things was now most fortunate l y diff erent, and in his opinion that difference was mainly attributable to the very Act which the lien. Member condemned. The effect of the old system was, that the moment a labourer ens known to have become possessed of a small sum ef money, lie was refused w labour un til i t as expended. It had been proved that in the parish of Royston several labourers, having become entitl e d to small legacies left them by a relative, were refused labour, and thus thrown into a state of compulsory and involuntary :idleness, and left to spend their money at the beer-shop instead of placing it in a savings' bank as a provision fur their future years. He could cite many other cases of sinii!ar natere, bet thought it unnecessary to trouble the iHouse with them. The Hon. Member complained that :,the present law made no distinction between tile honest eean and the greatest vagabond in England. It did make a ,distinction—it secured to the honest men the legitimate re ward of his honesty and industry, and left to the dishonest Pan and the vagabond the penalties which Providence, and she l eternal,aws of society, imp o s e up on hi s con d uct. The distinction made by the law to which the Hon. Member avished to revert was, that the honest man was punished for his honesty, end the vagabond received the greatest indulgence Ond the greatest favour. Under that law the labouring poor twere reduced to such a state of degradation, that mere than ikalf the abl e -b o di e d l a b ourers i n a parish were employed in the Itnoat useless, and purposely disagreeable tasks—such as dig- Oing holes and then filling them up again, or carrying stones leo one spot, and then carrying them back again. Nay, he ~ could refer to a list of items entered in parish books of pay 'mente made to men—not for labour, but for standing in the pound so many days, at so much per day. This was the sys tem which the friends of the poor wished to re -establish.— <Cries of " No, no.") But this was not all, for it was by no means uncommon under the old law for the honest English labourer, who was guilty of no ceime but poverty, to have his labour put up to auction to the highest bidder, without his consent, and without any option. He asked if the House was prepared to revert to those evils ? lie admitted that the Act of 1834 was a strong measure—that the cure was corre spondent to the intensity and malignity of the disease—but could the House return to the former evils? Relief was promptly afforded where it was really necessary. The sick, the dying, women, and children, obtained relief more efficiently than tinder the old system. He trusted that, by the decisive majority by which the motion of the lion. Member for Old ham would be rejected, the H 01.1.70 would show its regard for the poor and industrious classes of the country. Ms. LIDDELL although he could not look upon the New Poor-law, as regarded our application of it to the north of England, with any degree of favour, yet did not feel disposed to support the proposition of the Hon. Member for Oldham. All the particulars connected with the operation of the law ought to be inquired into, and then the House would be in a better condition to consider any alterations that might be ne cessary, and he should probably avail himself of that oppor tunity of suggesting some which he had in his own mind, but w ith which it was not now necessary to trouble the House. Mr. CLAY entered into the warmest euloeiums of the Pour-law Amendment Bill, which he contended was calculated to raise the m ora l con di t i on of the poor, and which by its ope ration had pro ve d t h at t h ose who had advocated the measure while in progress, were right in ail the beneficial results they had anticipated from its enactment. Those benefits were not confined to reduction of rates arid the abolition of peculation, for they had the clearest proof that the poor had been most materially benefittcd—that their condition, in fact, had not only been morally but physically improved. lie should not object to an amendment of the law if it were required, but he must protest most strongly against a motion for its repeal. Mr. DARBY must oppose the motion of the Hon. Mem ber for Oldham, fer he believed they could not altogether re turn to the old law. One thing he wished to reply to was • such assertions were likely to give rise to among the in-no • rant by assenting to such a m o ti on as that of the honourable Member for Southwerk ? Surely it was but justice to all parties interested in the subject either pro or con, to lot them • -now what was the opinion of their representatives upon the L representations which had been made on this important sub : ject. If the House believed these representations they should lose not a moment in repealing the Act ; but if, on the con trary, they disbelieved them, it was their duty, by a decided vote, to give to those who had the administration of this law • the moral force of a decided vote in its favour. After the speech of his Noble Friend he did not feel it necessary for him to enter at any great l engt h upon t h e mer i ts o f the loer lew Amendment Act. In his opinion the existing law was far more simple in principle than it was generally considered to be. It was but a combination of the leading principles of the Poor-law Acts of Elizabeth and the 9th of George IV. • The principle of the Act of Elizabeth was that the infirm and impotent poor should be relieved, while the able-bodied should be compelled to work ; and that of the 9th George I. that workhouses should he built, into which all claimants for relief should be compelled to enter, or have their names struck off the list. These two principles, be repeated, formed the basis of the law on which they now acted, and all they sought to do by the Act was to provide a better means for carrying that law into operation. If any errors had been committed the experience of these Commissioners would enable them to apply a proper remedy. Ilis belief was, and every conversa tion which he had with th m more thoroughly convinced him, tl a they understood fully the nature of the duty imposed on them, and that they w ou ld carry t h e l aw i nto o p er ation with the most humane feelings. Ile did not believe that any advice which they might receive would he so effectual as the dictates of their own intelligence and humanity.--( Cheers. ) Sir IL PEEL rose amid cries of " Divide I" He did not mean to enter upon the general considerations a r isin g out of this question, hut to state very shortly the grounds of his vote. Ile intended to oive a direct negative to the prooosilion made by the honourable Member for Old ham ; and h e could r not consent to vote for the prooozi tien lately made by the lion. Gentleman on his left, know ing that the question should not be put, and that Parliament should express no opinion on this subject. When he re collected, four years since, the universal impression on the part of the Parliament of this country that the mode of admi nistering relief then in existence was pregnant with the most injurious consequences ; that it was, in I oint of fact, dis=olv ing property, and, in this dissolution of property, doing irre psrable injury to the poor, relaxinz all the springs of in dustry, and holding out temptations to idleness : when he recollected that Parliament, with the universal assent of the country, determined to make a great experiment for the pur pose of recovering from this state of things, he eould not think it would be for the honour or credit of Parliament to refuse to pronounce an opinion as to whether the present law be adhered to or not. And he did believe that the Hon. Gentleman who made the first proposition, by compelling a decision on the question would do more to establish and en sure a satisfactory working of the law, by procuring from, he hoped, a large majority the expression of their determination to uphold its principle, than any combination of Ministers and their opponents eeuld effect.—(Cheers front both sides of the House.) For, in point of fact, the whole country was in doubt as to what wes the intention of Parliament, and under such circumstances no system could be satisfactorily worked. Ile knew in his own pert of the country that doubts were enter• tented as to the propriety of enlarging th e un i on, from the expectation that a motion would be made f or t h e repeal of this law ; and while such doubts were entertained as to whether they should recur to the old system, or persevere with the new, it was impossible to give sat i s f act i on. He, therefore, rejoiced that a decision was provoked on this question.—( Cheers.) There was a Committee al ready sitting for the purpose of determining whether, consistently with the maintenance of the principl e ; same relaxation might not be made in the provisions of this measure. But the alteration of the law in details was per fectly different from maintaining the principle of the existing s) • , -stem —( Hear hear.) Why, when they were told that abuses existed in the administration of the poor-laws, how ' could they hope to see a great experiment come into operation without the occurrence of cases of abuse and individual hardship ? When a system so monstrous, and which involved so many evils, was changed, it was contrary to human na ture and the ordinary operation of human affairs that indivi dual grievances should not occur, to which, h elee „ r deeply we might deplore them, it would be impossible to apply a remedy. But on the whole he was bound to say, co n _ sidering the magnitude of the experiment, which was only four years under trial, it was as satisfacto r y as any man could expect—(Cheers)—and under these circumstances, believing it to be absolutely necessary, not to save the property of the rich (for that was a subordinate part o f the question), but to elevate the moral condition of the labouring poor, and to invigorate the springs of in dustry, so far as the Bill went—and it was not to be ex pected that a wonderful change should he mode in four years --the experiment was satisfactory. He believed, on the THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA Y, .11411311 . 11A/CY. 21±.}.83S whole, that there was a gradual encouragement for the de. ' mud of honest labourers, and they had a right to anticipate that the temptation to i►►dustsy would well met. Under these Circumstances, he held that it would be discreditable to Parliament to hold out a hope, or rather tl►e apprehension, ll►at the old system would. be recta: red to : and all those gen tle:nen who throughout the cdutitry acted on the belief that they would adhere to their own principles, and who were e:lt - posed to the obloquy which it was easy for agitation to direct against them if they found that House disp(,sed to relax the provisions of the lan, minht fairly censure their conduct, and refuse to give their necessary co (Iteration to the law.— ( Cheers from both sides.) Mr. FIELDEN then, amidst loud and constant cries of " Divide," and " Question," rose to reply, and said that he considered it desirable that the decision upon this important question should be taken at once.—( Hear, hear.) Ile had expressly stated, and he row repeated that his opposition was directed against the whole Pill, as well against the principle as the details of it ; and he the more particularly opposed it on account of its operation upon wages throughout the coun try_(•t Hear, hear," and cries of " Divide," among which the lion. Member resumed his scat.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the 1101131 divided, when there appeared— For the previous question l2l Against it Majority On the motion for leave to bring in the Bill— Ayes Noes Majority against the motion —292 HUME AND PAPINEAU CORRESPONDENCE. Mr. HUME moved, pursuant to notice, for " copies of all letters between Air. Hume, Mr. Roebuck, and any other per sons in Great Britain, with M. Papineau, Mr. McKenzie, Dr. Duncombe, and any other indivilwils who have held public situations in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which have been seivql in those provinces, or otherwise come into the pessession of Government." Sir G. GREY stated that no corrc;pondence of the nature of that named in the motion had come into the hands of the Government. Mr. HUME said a paragraph had appeared in the papers containing what was called the correspondence of " that arch traitor Joseph Home."—(A laugh.) The correspondence was copied from American papers, and consisted of a letter of which he had no reason to be ashamed, and he thought it was only fair it should be laid on the table when moved for. Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman in such opinion, but said that the return to the motion would be nil. He was happy to find the statements as to the nature of the Ilon. Member's correspondence to be what he had before believed them to be, not entitled to credit.—(licar.) Colonel SIBTIIORP postponed to a future day his notice respecting the Government appointments in various,depart menta, including the recent one in Greenwich Hospital more particularly. Also his notice as to the reduction of the Com missioners of Greenwich Hospital to four, to be selected from the of ricers of the navy. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA. Mr. HUME moved for a " return of the quantity of cor poral punishments awarded and inflicted on the sepoys of the native armies of Bengal, Madras, anal Bombay, and the num ber of men discharged from the years 1834, 183.5, and 1836. Also showing the average number of lashes inflicted per regi ment, in the cavalry and infantry, severally (in continuation of the return for the years 1831-3). The Hon. Member also added (at the suggestion of Sir R. Inglis) to the motion a further one, for " copies of correspondence between the Tan jore Commissioners and the Government, from the I.lth of July, 1836."---Agreed to. BRITISH MANUFACTURES. Mr. HAWKE S moved for leave to bring in a " Bill to prevent the imitation of the names and marks of British manu factures on foreign articles imported into this country in bond, and exported to any one of the British colonies or elsewhere, and for the better identification of foreign manufactures ad mitted on duty for sale into the United Kingdom." Mr. L ABOUCHER E said there could be no objection on the part of the Board of Trade to the introduction of the Bill, although at the same time he considered it doubtful whether the evils it was intended to meet could be remedied without the risk of incurring greater.—( Hear. ) Leave was given to bring in the Bill, which was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time this day week. no torn-tent of the White inflicted on his Black fellow creature—if the care-whip were thrown asi de, and the prison -house also thrown epen—and there were no collars, no chain;, no treadmill, no starvation, no over exertion ' extorted by the fear of punishment from these their victims— ! had that traffic which they justly denounce, which they deno mieate a crime and not a trade, which bring; over Af jeans to the islands of the West, they would no longer inflict thet misery which they now call on their Sovereign 'to relieve. That you should ever join your voice with their's is a consume metion so little to be dreaded, that Its ill not delay you longer on that point. Reminding your Lordships of what I stated to yau on a former occasion—recalling your recollection to the facts 1 then unfolded--the influence of the head. money existing--above all, the uninterrupted slave trade of -Portugal and Spain--I now call on your Lordships to join in the only measure for effectually preventing it. Since those statements were made, my Lords, they have been promulgated all over the kingdom—they have met with no contradiction 1 They have been complained of', with one trifling exception only, fIA having been under the mark. That exception is this—that in a public daily news paper, the principle one on the part of the Govern ment, but from no fault certainly of its respectable conductor —I have read with astonishment, and I repel the insinuation with scorn, that I had acted the part of an advocate, and that my facts were misrepresented and exaggerated. How dares any man so to charge me ? How dares any man, without giving his name, to utter so false—so slanderous an imputation? I come forward in my own proper person--I ay re my ease--I drag the criminel to justice. I defy the erongdoer-1 defy his defender -- I Ap pear with my defiance, and I challenge investigation. How dares any man who shrinks and skulks behind a false name to charge me with having come forward with my de fiance—as having, like en advocate spoken from a brief and misrepresented the fact ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The absurdity of this charge, my Lords, outstrips its malice. I stated that Negroes, in order to lighten the ship during c h ase , were fl ung over b oar d by pairs, in fetters, to insure their being drowned, before they could be captured by the cruiser to give evidence against their murderers. The answer to that ii that this man—if he be a man—bas been on board slave ships, and had never seen the practice! I charged that the fetters of the slave w e re no t locked but rivetted with the forge—the answer is that he hes been on board slave ships, has seen fetters, that those fetter; were locked, and not rivetted with the forge. More dares any man deny the fact upon such a trumpery state ment, as if it were any thing like a proof that another man had not seen the crime committed, because this individual him self did not happen to be present at the commission of it ? According to this, ten, •r twenty, or ono hundred per sons might prove a murder which their own eyes saw ; another coming forward says it is false, for he was not pre sant when the crime was done. Did I not state my authority? Did not I avouch my author? Did I not say from whom I had my statements ? Did I not state distinctly, my Lords, that it was Commmodore Hayes, of her Majesty's Nary—and I did not give half of the atrocities which he states its his dispatches.—( Hear.) My Lords, I shall not now be charged with exaggeration. No more, my Lords, will be I charged with understating—l will now tell what I withheld. I will call upon my Noble Friend, the late Governor ofJamaica—himsel f a planter—himself the proprietor of slaves— whether he did not know a vessel with a space of 31- feet only ? There my Lords, I am understating again—it was only two feet and a-half feet between the decks. In that space my Lords, one hundred and fifty of these beings had been crowded and jamed like lifeless lumber—in a way in which no Christian would treat the lower animals. I will ask my Noble Friend whether he did not know of that vessel, and that it was to all the senses a nuisance not fit to he described. The opthaltnia had broken out to a considerable extent in that vessel, and whenever a poor unhappy wretch was seized with it, in place of having medical assistance—in place of a surgeon being called to him—he was instantly and in his chains flung overboard in order to stop the infection. I will be charged, my Lords, no longer with under statements. I said that one ship had brought 700 slaves, and I stopped there, for it was quite enough to harrow the feelings of all ; lent, my Lords, there was another ship which brought a cargo of 980 poor, miserable, unoffending beings, and out of that 980, without any direct murder, but from the hardships and sufferings inseparable from the traffic, 600 fell the victims of the pestilential hold ; and four other ships, whi c h sailed from the same port with from 2,300 to 2,400, no less than I,doo of these poor slaves fell sacrifices to the disease. As long as the slave trade was only contraband, the calcula tion was constantly made—" If we escape three or four times and are taken once,—even if we escape one half the number of times and the other half are captured, the profits are so enormous —twenty, thirty, fifty thousand pounds on one voyage—the profits are so vast, the risk is well worth the running, and therefore persist we will." In the year 1809 I had the singular felicity of laying the axe to the root of the traffic, by at once stopping all such calculation —making it felony—punishing it as such ; for I know that they who would run tie risk when it could be reduced to the calculation of profit and loss, would be slow to put their heads in that halter,. which, like other felens, their crimes deserved. The Bill was passed unanimously through its stages in the Ilouse of Commons, and since then I will venture to say, though English capital is covertly employed in many channels in promoting that traffic, yet since it was made felony, English subjects have ceased to engage in it ; but the same cannot be said of Portugal, Spain, and Holland. I will be accused no more of mis-statement. Two slavers were chased by a cruizer. They were seen to throw over in pairs, one after another, 130 captives in their fetters—the elder ones fettered, the weaker ones free—all alike doomed to that watery grave, to assist the criminals to escape : so that this horrible spectacle presented itself -to the view of the afflicted chaser, and they Yalu) were in the chaser saw tke surface of the water covered with struggling wretches, the elder ones, in fetters, sinking swiftly— the women, and, above all, the helpless children, struggling for life until the waves closed over them. But now I must approach that subject which for some time has excited almost universal anxiety. I would first of all remind you (because that goes to the root of the evil)—l would remind you of the anxiety which was felt as the time approached for the coming into operation of the Emancipation Act in August, 1834. My Lords, there was much to apprehend from the character of the masters. I know the nature of man—fond of power-- jealous of interference in its exercise —averse., above all things to have it wrested from him—especially when it has been long enjoyed—and, my Lords, I know another and a worse part of human nature. I know that he who has abused power clings to it with a yet more convulsive grasp. I know the nature of man—his revenge against those who have been rescued from his tyrannous fangs—never forgiving those he has injured, whether white or black. I have never experienced an unforgiving enemy, except its the person of one of whose in justice I felt that I had just reason to complain. On the part of the slave, my Lords, I was not without anxiety, for I knew the corrupt nature of the degrading system under which he groans. I know that in the language of one of the earliest of profane poets, "the day which makes a man a slave robs him of half his -value." I knew that he might become averse to voluntary labour, and unwilling to work for hire, and incapable of labouring in his own behalf from never having had any concern to watch over or tend, but always being provided for by others; and I thought it, my Lords, extremely far from impossible that his nature, through those who had taught him bad lessons by their maltreatment of himself, might become so perverted as to have made him too familiar with his chains ; and it was therefore I confess, my Lords, with some anxiety I looked forward to the Ist of August, 1834, and I yielded, though reluctantly, to the plan of an intermediate state before the full enjoy meat of freedom by what is called the transit ion condition of indentured apprenticeship. The Ist of August came, that day so confidently and joyously anticipated by the poor slaves, and so sorely dreaded by their hard taskmasters, and if ever there was a picture interest ing to leek upon—if ever there was a passage in the history of a people that could redound to their honour, if ever th ere was an answer to the scandalous calumnies which for ages we had heaped upon thoon, as if in justification of the wrongs which we had done them—that picture and that pas sage ere to he found in the uniform history of that day over the whole of the West Indian Islands. Instead of the fires of rebellion, lit by a sense of lawless revenge and resistance to oppression, the whole of these islands were illuminated by the light of joy, contentment, peace, and good: - ill towards all men. No civilised nation after gaining as unexpected victory, could have shown more delicacy and forbearance than was exhibited by the slaves at the great moral consummation which they had attained. There was not a look or a gesture to goad the eyes--not a sound escaped from negro lips to wound the ears of the Planters. All was joy, congratulation, and hope. They felt that their fetters had been lessened, and they looked forward with hope to the time when the degrading marks which they had left would be wholly erased.—( Hear.) This delicate peaceful joy was all • that was to be seen, heard, or felt, in the West Indian Islamic Amusements there were none to be seen that day —not even those amusements by which they were accustomed to beguile the hard lot of slaves, and which reminded them of the country of their forefathers —n o , for the negrocs are an eminently pious people, and they hold sacred the day of their liberation. They enjoy the advantages of relizious struction in a great degree —they enj o y the consolations of s of their religion to a great extent. They have them not from the administrations of an Established Church—not that they are withholden from them ; b u t anot h er was to be found more suitable to their purposes, and therefore more acceptable to their feelings. They had the meek and humble pastor, who although, perhaps inferior in secular accomplishments, was not the less calculated to guide them is the paths of religion. But the Missionary, not set above them by great learning not too refined by any peculiarities so as to differ from them—passing the time among them during the week in the same way as they minister to them on the Sabbath—he is their friend in common matters, as well as their guide in religion : and I cannot pass over this part of the case, without offering my humble tribute of very heartfelt admiration of the labour and zeal of those 'slims and disin terested men—( Hear, hear)—and I know if I were to make my appeal to my Noble Friend behind me (the Marquis of Sligo), he would say, as be lied promulgated else where, that for the source of religious information among the slaves, it was to the missionary they had to look.—( Cheers.) Therefore it was that fourteen yenta ago I felt all the anxiety I have already alluded to, when it was ray lot to bring before the Commons of England the persecutions of one of the most devoted, most pious, and most useful of that class of men who, because of his self-devotion, had been hunted down, and made to die the death for teaching the Gospel of peace to the poor negroes of one of those islands; and then it was that I gloried to recollect, the first of those blows was struck, of which we now have happily lived to witness the day when the final accomplishment shall be, in which the chains of the Negroes by those blows shall be struck off,--( Hear.) The first of August came, and the day was kept as a sacred holiday. All the churches were crowded from early dawn. Five or six times in that day was each of the churches filled and emptied in succession, with multitudes elm came to render thanks to God fur their liberation. In that island, where the bounty of nature seems to provoke the appetite to indulgence, and to scatter with a profuse hand all the means of excitement, not one negro was, on thet first day of August, found in a state of intoxication.—( Hear, from Lord Sligo.) Three hundred and forty thourted slaves were liberated on that day, and their peace ful festivity was disturbed only on one estate, in one parish, by an irregularity which three or four persons put down.— ( Hear, from Lord Rolland.) But, my Lords, we were told that that day would be a day of disturbance, of outrage, of disaster.—(Hear, hear.) We were told that there would be no voluntary labour ; but we find now that there is no want of men to work for him—(l-leer, hear, from Lord Holland.) ! have the authority of my Noble Friend be hind me ( herd Sligo) that there has been no want of labour. My Noble Friend has made en inquisition into this matter, and I am enabled to mention his authority for saying that on nine estates out of ten there is ne difficulty whatever in getting labourers to work for hire.—(Repeated cries of " Hear, hear," from Lords Sligo and Holland.) And yet, my Lords, there were people bold enough to tell us that without the cart-whip no negro could be made to work —we were told that the negro would fall asleep when released front the lash. Yet the difficulty has not been found. My Lords, we find that the apprentices work without the whip and that wages aro as good a stimulus as the scourge even to negro industry. Oh, but it %iris said, Oita will do for cotton planting and cotton picking, and indigo making—all these are the ordinary descriptions of negro work ; but the cane will cease to grow-- the operation of hoeing will be put an end to ; boiling will cease to be pract;sed; and the sugar will be turned out of the Island. Many thought that those whose experience of the West Indies was better than their own reasons and their own hopes, which had been founded upon ignorance of the negro character, were more likely to come to pass ; for they were the confident predictions cf confident men. Now, let the experienced man come forth with his prediction, and I will state mine against it, and you will find that he will talk no more about it. Twice as much sugar was made in that year per hour as in the for mer one, and of a better quality--and one man a largo planter expressly avowed, that give him twenty free men and he would do more work than with 100 slaves, or 50 indentured appren tices. But Antigua, what has happened there ?—for in Antigua there was not even the indentured apprenticeship. In Antigua and Bermuda, as would have been the case at Montserrat, if the Upper House had not thrown out the Bill which had been passed by the planters themselves, there had been no prepara tory step. In Antigua and Bermuda, on the first of August, 1834, three years and a half ago, there was not a single slave or indentured apprentice. But it has been said that it could hardly be expected that, after so complete and abject state of slavery which had so long existed, the s udden emancipation would endanger the peace of the Island. The ex perience of Aug.l at once scared away the phantom which bad been raised in the minds of the planters, then it Wa s said—only wait till Christmas, when all who have practical knowledge of the Negro character dread rebel lion. They did wait—and I will go to Antigua, for it is the strongest case—there there was no preparatory state—the re there was no transition—the chains were at once knocked oft and the negro was made free. For the first time, within 3 1 years that year, the Christmas of 134, was the first that martial law was not proclaimed in Antigua. You call for facts here are facts ; you call for experience—here it is : and let the man who scoffed at us—who laughed to scorn at what lie called our visionary, theoretical schemes, which were impracti cable—that never could be carri e d i n t o e ff ec t without a rebellion, and the lose of the col on i es —l e t him come forward and deny any statement w hi c h I h ave ma de. Let those who thought that with the us e o f th e phrases " Planter of Jamaica—the West India interest—residen t in Jamaica"—they could make our b a la nce ki c k the beam--let them hear what I have told, for they arc facts—that when th e chains were knocked off there was not one breach of the peace committed, neither on the Ist of August itself, or at the Christmas following. My Lords, under what flimsy pretext did they next undertake to disparage the poor negro race? Had he not seen it in print, and been otherwse informed of the fact, he could not have believed it. They actually held out this last fear, which, like the others, we s fated to be dissipated by the fact—they saide-wwt only till the anniversary of the first of August , and then you will see the effect of your rashness—as if they said, you will see what will take place on the anniversary °` the emancipation—they were prepared for liberty in 18 34, but when the anniversary came about they would break out into re volt and rebellion. My Lords, I ask you merely t° yourselves be experience—by that experience which you have y gained—l ask only that you should be guide d the fruits of your own experience—that this Legislat ure should be guided by that experience which, according to that Book which you all revere, teaches even t }l ° o ° s foolish of our foolish race.—(Cries of " Hear, he ar. But now, my Lords, I think my task may be said t out done. I think I have proved my case, for I have shorn tbs.: o t the negro can work without the stimulant of the whip. 1.1 have skews that he can labour for hire without any he., motive for industry. I have demonstrated that all over the West Indies, even when fatigued with working the allotted hours for the profit of his master, he can work again for wages for him who chooses to hire him, and has wherewithal to pay him. I have also most dis• tinctly shewn that the experience of Antigua and Bermuda is demonstrated to show that without any state of preparation —without any indenture of apprenticeship at all—he i 5 fit to be at once entrusted with his freedom, an d will work voluntarily as a free labourer for hire. But I have also demonstrated, from the same experience, b reference to the same state of facts, that a more quiet, inoin artnix sive, peaceable, innocent race, is not to be found on the c but than the negroes—not in their own unhappy coun tr y , after they have been turned from it, and enslaved 1 :!! your Christian land—made the victim of the ba rbarizing demon of civilized powers, and has all his characte if It were possible to corrupt it, and all his feelings, if it wro possible to pervert them—attempted at least to be pt.ireertedned, corrupted by christian and civilized men ; and that i n this f'taac t with all incentives to raisdemeanour poured around temptations to misconduct which the arts and artis from men can give—that after this transition is made so slavery to ;apprenticeship, aye, and from slaveryno'i absolute freedom—a Negro's spirit has been found to r i g. the entire unbroken tranquillity of the Carribean s e silo My Lords, have I not proved my case ? I refer you te it records of your own Statute-books. On what ground to it that. this intermediate state was sugssested ? All men admitte. were it not for fear that the slaves,through being unaccustolne:. to voluntary labour, would not be able to accommodate the' c h e i s m :th a .. t. selves to the state of freedom, there need not have hnee any delay, and freedom might have been absolutely con: ferred. This was the delusion which prevailed, and which was stated in the preamble of the statute—the same delusion which had made the men on one side state, and the o ther . t l e believe, that it Was necessary to pay the slave-owner s for tltoe loss it was supposed they would sustain. But it was founti be a baseless fear, arid the only result of the phantom so co jured up was a payment of twenty millions to the conjurors.vv---.0 ( Hear, and a laugh.) Now, I maintain that had we kno what we now know of the character of the negroes, neither would this compensation have been given to the s l a ve-owners , nor we have been guilty of proposing to keep the negro in slavery five years after we were decided that he had a right t his freedom. The Noble and Learned Lord here proceeded to contend that up to the p rese nt time the slave-owners, so f ar ,. from being sufferers, had been gainers by the abolition 01 slavery and the eaactment of the system of apprenticeship, arid that consequently up to the present moment nothing had oc curred to entitle them to a claim upon the compensation allot ted by Parliament. The shire-owners might be said to have pocketted the seven millions without having the least claim to them, and therefore, in considering the proposition he e ns abutit to make, Parliament should bear in mind that the slave proprietors were, if anything, the debtors to the station. The money had, in fact, been paid to them by mistake, and , were the transaction one between man and man, an action for its recovery might lie. But the slave-owners alleged that if the apprenticeship were now done away there would be a loss*, and tkat to meet that loss they had a right to the money; For argument's sake Ito would suppose this to be true, 0" that there would be loss ; but would it not be fair that thr, money should b e lodged in the hands of a third party, authority to pay back at the expiration of the two years what, ever rateable sum the master could prove himself to have lost His firm belief was, that no less could arise ; but, desirous to meet the planter at every point, lie should have no obje ction to make terms with him. • Let bite, then, pay the money into ensue, as it were, a nd a t th e en d o f two y e ars he should be fully indemnified for any less he might prose. He called upon their Lordships to look to Antigua and the Bermudas f 6 proof that the freed negro worked well, and that no loss was occasioned to the planters or their property by the granting of emancipation. But it was said that there was a el l e' , renee between the cases of Antigua and other colonies, eu as Jamaica, and it was urges? that while the negrolace: the former, f rom th e smellness and the barrenness of the p would be forced into work, that in the latter they , ' 4 , ) , , tihi ), run away, end take refuge in the woo d s . Now, he nSi'W • vthy sh ou ld th e n e gr o r u n away f rom hi s work on being* made free more than during the continuance of his aPPr e l i ' ; ticeship ? Why, again, should it b e supposed that on the s of August, 1840, the eman c ip a t e d negroes should have ,co inclination to betake th emse l ves to t h e woods than in 183 ' If there was a risk of the slaves running to the woods in 183 . 8 + that risk would be i ncrease d an d not di m i n ished during the intermediate period up to 1840, by the treatment they w ere receiving from th e i r masters, an d the deferring of their hopes. My Lords (continued the Noble Lord), I have now to say a few words u p on t h e treatment wh i ch the s l aves h a ve receive d during the past three years of their a pp re nticeship, and whic h it is alleged during th e next two ears is to make them o fitted_ for absolute emancipation. My Lords, lam prepared to show that in most respects the treatment the slaves have re ceived since 1834 is n o better, and in many others more unjust and worse, than it ever was i n t h e t i me o f a b so l ute slavery. It Is is true that the use of the cartwhip as a stimulus to labour has been abolished. This I admit is a great and most satisfsctory shlvenapro,ven.ent ; but, in e v er y o th er p ar ticular, the state o f the I am prepared to show, is not improved, and, in many respe o c f ts i , oo it d, is l m vi a ,i t i e l t e ia onp materially worse. First, with regard to die ar ticlereanrtei e t e h d e n J e am r a o i c e s a u other prison e olo allowance with the Jam a i ca pr i son t he g allowance of rice is 14 pints a w eek to each. I h ave no return of the allowance to t h e i n d en t ure d appren ni. t t ice in J ama i ca , b ut I b el i eve i t i s li tt l e over t hi s ; b u t in Barba does and th e L eewar d I s l an d s i t i s muc h un d er . In I3arbadoee , that allott e d t o t h e ap a insteeid of recei.ing the Jamaica prison alio:N.lrace of 14 pints a week, the apprenticed negro received but 10 pint: , v , n ile in the Leeward Islands he bad but 8 pints. In the Crown co lonies, before 1831, the slave received 21 pints of rice, now the apprentice gets but 10 ; so that in the material article, ROXBURGH ELECTION COMMITTEE. Sir C. BROKE \TER E moved, pursuant to notice, " that the minutes of the proceedings of, and the evidence taken be fore, the Roxburgh Election Committee be laid on the table of the House end printed."—Agreed to. IRISH GRAND JURY CESS. Lord MORPETII moved for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the levy and expenditure of Grand Jury Cess in the county and city of Dublin to the mode at present by law esta bli!‘hed in the other counties of Ireland. The motion was agreed to, the Bill read a first time, and ordered for second reading on Tuesday next. Mr. HARVEY said he was anxious to take the earliest possible opportunity of correcting an error into which he had been drawn in the course of the evening. The Honourable Gentleman then stated that, in his anxiety to attend to the Speaker's summons as one of the tellers on the motion of the Honourable Member for Oldham on the Poor-law Bill, he had been shut in, and compelled to vote against his will in the majority, whereas he had intended to vote in both the mino ritie on the questiom.—( A laugh.) The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half•past One. HOUSE OF LORDS, FBA'. 20. The Royal Assent IT as given by Commission to the Banking Copartnership Bill. The Commissioners were the Lon° CHANCELLOR, Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and Lord ALBEMARLE. A message from the House of Commons brought up the Town of Milton Improrement Bill, which was read a first timo. The Earl of DURHAM presented a petition from the inhabitants of Sudbury, praying for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the A , layor and Inhabitants of the city of Durham, to the same effect. Lord FOLEY presented petitions from Worcester and Bawdley to the same effect. Lord HUNTINGDON presented petitions from several Dissenting places of worship in Bury ; and also one from the inhabitants of Bury, signed by 900 persons, including several clergymen of the Established Church, to the same effect. Oa the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Exchequer Bills Bill, and the Extent in Aids Bill, were read a second time; and several Private Bills passed through a stage. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table an Older in Council, approving of two schemes proposed by the Ecclesiastical Itc(atom SAVEY. Lord BROUGHAM then adra ß nced to the table, and said —I do not think, my Lords, that ever, upon any but one occasion, in the whole course of my Parliamentary life, I have risen to address either House of Parliament with so much anxiety as I do this evening; The occasion to whi c h alone I can liken this present, was when I brought to the consideration of the other House of Par liament, the ill usage of our \Vest Indian relations, and when my motion gave rise to that great debate upon th e condition of our brethren in the Colonies, which happily has not been without result. But there is this difference to sustain my spirit upon this occasion, that whereas at that time our sky was clouded, and scarcely a ray of light shot through our atmosphere, vr o have now a bright and luminous prospect over the path on which we are about to enter. I attribute much of it to that debate, and I am gratified, my Lords, that I have the means of enabling your Lordships to recommend yourselves to your fellow countryenen, by leading the way in this safe, practical, and glorious work. Ido not say that your Lordships hare need of this occasion, or of any ether, to recommend yourselves to the good esteem of the people. But if you have any favour to recover, I know of no more speedy road to accomplish the attainment of that purpose than the present question holds out to you. But I will not rest my appeal to your Lordships upon such grounds. I claim your aequieseenee upon the justice of my case. I claim it upon your consciences—l claim it on your duty to God and to man—l claim it upon your consistency with yourselves—on your own measure of 1833. I call upon you to work out the wise and Christian principle—l rush at once without preface, into the midst of this argument—l come at onc e to the main question—l tell you that it is the question of the Slave Trade which I bring before you now, and which I have already in this House and elsewhere denounced. On that there can be no difference of opinion. We have everything with us—everything of reason, of argument, of fact, and of experience upon our side. I call upon your Lordships to take the matter in your own hands. To use the words of the late Mr. Canning, I should say to you, that I would not trust the masters of the slaves to legislate for the Yet I can refer you to the example of those masters for a sla r v u e le e. which may govern you in making laws for slaves. I ho ld i n my hand a document which, I thank Heaven, I har e lived to see—that the Legislation of Jamaica itself, the mas ts:is of slaves, representing all the slave owners of the Island, felt that they also represented the slaves too themselves; a nd they approached the Throne of the Sovereign with a unanimous request, thankful, as they expressed themselves —tardily thankful, as they expressed themselves, that the Slave traffic had been now p u t d own by the Imperial Parliament for above thirty years, and beseeching the Sovereign, with the advice and con sent of her Parliament, to consummate that work—to pro hibit for ever all traffic in human beings, and t o j o i n with all the powers of the earth interested in that trade in the only effectual remedy, by having it declared by the law of nations as it is, robbery, and murder, and piracy, by the law of God. The Legislature observed, " nor can we fuser the higher position ;" the Colonial Legislature having stated that their interests were concerned in its suppression ; ,t Nor can we forego the higher position, as a question of humanity ; representing all classes in the island, we consider ourselves entitled to offer to your Majesty the respectful remonstrance to the continuance of this condemned traffic in human beings. As a community composed o f the descendants of Africa as well as Britain, we are anxious to advance the character of the country, and we, therefore, entreat your Majesty to exert your interest with foreign powers to cause this trade at once to be called piracy as the only effectual means of putting it down, and thereby grace the com mencement of your auspicious reign."—( Hear.) My Lords, I will not stop to remind those law-givers of Jamaica why it is that the slave trade is a crime of so black a dye—l will not stop to remind them that, if slavery were no more, that if the West Indies were like England, that if the West Indies knew